LIMIT LAW
GSH POINTER RESCUE CASE, SAN DIEGO, CA
02|09|
© TheDogPress
-
Jan Flaherty, German Shorthair Pointer
Rescue, has chosen to defend against unfair prosecution by San Diego
Humane Officers. Jan says a precedent-setting case is vital to all
rescue groups and we agree.
At the end of this CA coverage, you will find a link to an ongoing
(May) case relating to interference by AC and well-meaning dog people.
Flaherty states “For the last five
months, I and the GSP rescue have been under attack
by San Diego Animal Control for keeping too many dogs on my three
acre ranch zoned for commercial use. The complaints against me arise
from a visit by San Diego Humane, which officers represented they
were present for an 'animal welfare check', unaffiliated with any
law enforcement activity and not present for any other purpose than
to verify care of the dogs. They were allowed entry, inspected, and
noted upon departure that they found no conditions or reason for
concern.
“Two weeks later, a San Diego Animal Control officer arrived with an
'anonymous' complaint that I was caring for more than the 6 dogs
currently allowed in San Diego County without a commercial kennel
permit. Again, I provided all records and information to the officer
who was sympathetic and appreciative of our Rescue (but said) any
violation determination would be up to animal control. I later was
given a citation for too many dogs
and not complying with rabies vaccines for
older dogs.
“In cooperation with AC, I agreed to reduce numbers but asked
exception for the very senior dogs who could not safely be
vaccinated or placed in kennels elsewhere.” Flaherty says that
despite substantial compliance in reducing numbers, Animal Control
decided to prosecute her. It appears she was unwilling to “endanger
or end the lives of our senior Shorthairs” by giving rabies booster
and as she points out, “it would eliminate my constitutional
protections … I believe that rescues must be recognized as partners
by animal control… we should be 'defined' by applying terms which
distinguish us from commercial boarding or breeding kennels.”
Flaherty therefore decided “to defend myself against these charges
and stand up for other legitimate Rescues facing similar
over-reaching situations by challenging their legality in Court.”
It is her contention that “rescues
have been treated differently under existing laws by animal control
when it suited them.” She says that picking up Shorthairs at San
Diego County Shelters helped them meet their goals but somehow, she
is now considered a 'commercial kennel' for having rescued those
dogs.
“Rescues
routinely get such calls on a regular basis and our response swells
the numbers of 'adoptions' claimed by these shelters, thereby
justifying their continued public funding and political power. In
turn, Animal Control uses that power against rescues or individuals
when it suits them.”
Flaherty feels “this is our opportunity to promote and protect the
entire Rescue community by setting a legal precedent which will
require counties to develop a respectful policy by
design reflecting the respect and cooperation which will keep us all
viable.”
“My personal decision to challenge capricious regulation and
arbitrary enforcement via unreasonable 'interpretations' of the law,
is not without significant risk, great emotion and cost. We hope the
legal precedent for a new 'sanctuary' or 'rescue' definition for
appropriate rescues will be cited by other Rescues facing
prosecution. However, this case will very likely lead to a long
over-due revolution in relations between government agencies and
Rescuers who are too often treated as outside the law.”
She pleads for people to “write letters, make phone calls and send
emails to newspapers, TV stations and anyone else who might assist
our cause.” Shorthair rescue and Flaherty also need money to pay
legal costs and “fight on behalf of other rescue organizations that
suddenly find themselves over the limit, or in violation of some
other regulation due to the work they do.”
Flaherty’s statement speaks for all
rescue groups. “Legitimate rescues must be treated with respect and
dignity; not subjected to capricious interpretations on the whim of
a representative from a quasi government agency. This is where
we can start.”
We regret not getting this story out sooner because even with “a
very dedicated and informed legal team working at minimal rates …
the research, preparation and expert testimony is expensive” and she
can’t fund this on her own.
We will keep readers appraised on this
case but in the meantime, do what you can and no matter what your
breed or where you live, send your legal defense fund donation to:
GSP Rescue
Att: Jan's
Legal Defense Fund
PO Box 974
Bonsall CA 92003-0974
CA goes after
disabled owner's service dogs and in yet another example of dog
limit laws and rabid local politicians, see
Little Minded Littleton
Small town or
large, it's coming to your door.
|
LIMIT
LAW
MAYNARD (COLLIE) CASE, NASHVILLE, NC
Downey Maynard and six
retired collie show dogs live comfortably on property once owned by
her grandparents.
Courtroom observations
by Fern St. Clai
02|09|
© TheDogPress
/ Barbara Andrews, Editor. Maynard's house is in town, the 1.5 acre yard entirely
fenced. The dogs are full time house dogs. Maynard states she has
never had any dog problems until “The Neighbors From Hell moved in”
and began to taunt her dogs and file complaints.
This common neighbor
dispute has evolved into three-part coverage as the case against
Downey built up. Let's start at the beginning but if you are
having similar problems, you need to follow this story and learn!
Randy Gilbert sent a
Letter to the local newspaper entitled “Small town = small minds.”
The letter, which we have, states in part, “I have personally
witnessed the neighbor directly behind her aggravating the dogs to
make them bark. She (Maynard) has spent nearly $20,000 in
landscaping in 2006/7 planting shrubs and vegetation around the
fencing to be a screen to protect her dogs from the harassing
neighbors.”
Collies will be collies,
meaning they will bark but it takes something pretty exciting to get
Maynard’s old dogs going. Laughing, she said they barked at kids
who discovered the new paved parking lot next to her but the kids
and dogs quickly became bored with each other.
But the Neighbors From
Hell continued to complain. Maynard said the Police Chief
dispatched an officer to stake out her house to see how much the
dogs barked. Quite by coincidence, the neighbor called in a
complaint against her dogs while the officer was patiently waiting
to hear a dog bark. Both the Chief Of Police and Animal Control
testified on her behalf. Maynard told us “The Health Department
also testified for me, that everything was ‘spotless clean’ because
that’s just the way I am.”
In spite of so much
favorable testimony, she was found guilty of violating the “10 P.M.
quiet law” because her dogs barked after 10 P.M. Maynard insists
that the only evidence against her was provided by the Neighbors
From Hell. Even that was refuted by another neighbor who testified
that on one of the alleged occasions, she was sick and coughing so
badly that she spent hours out on her porch that night and she did
not hear Maynard’s dogs barking.
Found guilty, Downey
Maynard was ordered to get rid of her beloved but “excess” dogs.
She refused. Maynard said Nashville is a very small town where the
Mayor (only the second mayor in 50 years!) and none of the Council
Members own pets. She believes this facilitated arbitrary passage
of the Dog Limit Law, citing as example the Yard Sale Limit Law.
Maynard wasn’t trying to
be funny. Nashville residents are only allowed three yard sales per
year.
In states such as North
Carolina, municipal law is the final word, unless one goes to
appellate court.
Maynard explained “If
the town orders everyone to paint their house pink then it
is the law.” The rational basis for what is appropriate is
determined by the municipality. A municipal law can be
challenged on the basis of state constitutionality,
capriciousness and a few other exceptions but as Ms. Maynard has
discovered, it is not easy, quick, or inexpensive.
As Fern St. Clair
observed in her report, “NC State Statutes say that municipalities
can regulate animal use in a town -- that is, they have been given
the power to say 'No dogs are allowed in Nashville', if they
choose. Period. They might say 'No goats are allowed in Raleigh',
and we have evolved to the point that we would accept that
ordinance.”
According to St. Clair,
the three justices who finally heard the case in Appellate Court
pointed out that most numbers we live by are 'arbitrary', such as
speed limits, blood alcohol levels, etc. However, Mr. Reid,
Maynard’s Durham attorney, argued that setting an 'arbitrary' number
for how many dogs are allowed per family was inappropriate and
unconstitutional. He said 6 little toy dogs could be kept inside
and no one would know or care. Alternatively, one or two noisy,
potentially dangerous dogs kept out in a yard could be a threat to
human health or safety. Reid also pointed out that dogs become
'family', and to say how many are allowed, on numbers alone, seems
unfair.
Sitting in the appellate
courtroom, St. Clair reports, “The justices seemed to appreciate
that these 6 old dogs, well cared for and well behaved, present no
threat to the health and safety of anyone. Also that as society
evolves, the way we think about our dogs changes, that is, today we
care more about our dogs as family members, and not just as an
outside farm animal.
“Both sides referred to
the fact that dogs are, at present, not given any kind of 'special'
status, that is, they are just property. Justice Stephens said we
are the guardians of our dogs. I did not sense an AR threat from
her. It seemed like all 3 justices were trying to figure out a way
they could side with Downey so that she could keep her 6 dogs,
because, they admitted, that made the most sense, and the best
logic.”
The case is under appeal
and we will keep you updated. During the interview, Ms. Downey
Maynard was upbeat but frustrated, concerned for her dogs. She said
it could take a few more months to get a ruling or it could come
very quickly. She had been sure the evidence was so overwhelming
that the local court would find in her favor. She is now less sure
of the justice system but determined to keep all six of her old
dogs.
Maynard Collie Case, Part 2 Neighbors accuse TheDogPress of bias
and inaccurate reporting. |
Side
Effects